Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Candidates React to Iranian Missile Test

Sen. John McCain issued a statement on the Iranian long-range missile test this morning; Sen. Barack Obama's office released a statement three hours later (the candidate had offered his preliminary reaction on "The Early Show" on CBS).

John McCain: Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions. Iran's missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.

Barack Obama: These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.

As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave. As President, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy.

By Web Politics Editor  |  July 9, 2008; 10:57 AM ET
Categories:  Primaries  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Malia Obama Teases Her Dad
Next: Merkel Chides Obama for 'Electioneering' Abroad

Comments

All so wise, and yet call Iran a stupid hostile nation? Who was it that started a war in Iraq for not. Who supplied Israel with all it's nukes.
Dam straight they are Flexing. You have no business there. I am sure the Iranian population is terrified. We should all be terrified for we left our children a world of chaos.
If you believe in a god, I'd advice to start praying America.

Posted by: justadad55+ | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Your President started an unnecessary war, for oil, millions have died in a Region where we will never be needed, nor posed any real threat to the US. The USA is complaining about Iran, but showing off your new drones that can travel several thousand miles, conflicting massive assaults. Now, I must as all Americans. Who is the real threat to the world? I don't blame Iran, the world is worried. And you wonder why gas is up and people are loosing homes. You are to dam busy meddling in others affairs. Your only income is yet more military hardware that will esculate a world on the brink of the big war. Speaking of weapons of mass destruction. Look in the Mirror, friends, will it never end?

Posted by: justadad55+ | July 10, 2008 6:56 AM | Report abuse

"Are we talking to a defense minister here? If so, please provide us with a map of the system for us OK? If you cant, just go away and vote for obama. All your rhetoric is getting tiring!!:"

Shahab 3 has a range of approximately 900 NM, putting Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of India, etc., into Iranian range, not Eastern Europe (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm).

The system is reliant on upgaded EW radar suites and new X-Band ground-based radars for precision targeting, but rely on already in-place systems which require the upgrade for precision necessary for targeting (excuding the sea-based X-band radar), not confirming a launch or providing basic estimates (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/). The system adds nothing of value to the Iran issue, and besides all that, the Missile Defense shield is designed to counter ICBMS, not IRBMs like Shahab, for which PATRIOT is a sufficient system. It's nonsense.

Now, I've provided you on all my posts with specific factual statements, are you prepared to back up your rhetorical nonsense?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | July 10, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT? CAN YOU TRUST A MAN WHO ADMITTED HE'S A LIAR? JUDGE FOR YOURSELF:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk

Posted by: DAN | July 9, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Mccains policies will keep us in any country longer than expected or needed. I think Mccain just like wars. Even now he's insisting that we isolate Iran and more sanctions. Then what? Will that stop them from producing nuclear weapons and aren't we and our allies dependent on their oil? Mccain would be a complete disaster. Mccain's gaffe on social security about young people tax dollars being spent for elderly people retirements. Thats what social security is, Dah. Mccain doesnt' have a clue what he is talking about. Now I see why he lost to a loser like Bush, he a bigger loser. No Mcsane.

Posted by: Jerry | July 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I have 3 Points. Obama is right. We should have used sanctions with direct diplomacy years ago. Mccain is wrong to isolate Iran inwhich we do get oil from and once we isolate them then what? Mccain can't even make sense when its a possiblitiy that we might have 3 all out world wars. Hes a war monger and he'll never keep America safe.

Secondly, Mccain's comment during his town hall meeting on the economy when he said its a disgrace for young people tax dollars to pay for the older people retirements. Isn't that how its is done? Mccain really doesn't understand economics or much of anything. Young people invest their tax dollars so the older people retire and then when there old they too will retire with the next generations tax dollars. Mccain is a complete idiot.

third, Now that the Iraqi president is demanding troop a time table for troop withdrawls, I would like to see Mccain enforce staying there for 100 years. Besides Mccain and Bush both agreed we would leave if the Iraqi's asked us, looks like their asking now. Will Mccain continue to ensist we need to stay permanetly or for 100 years?

Posted by: Linda | July 9, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Thank god that we are all reasonably minded people who are all freaking out because Iran decided to flex its muscles when last week when Israel decided to flex theirs everyone thought that it was a good thing. I am sick of Israel starting things and expecting backup. If they do attack a sovereign state the I hope to God every missile that Iran has lands exactly where they intend it to land and that when the state terrorists in Jerusalem demand succour from their Nuclear poodles that is is met with the equanimity that it deserves.

Posted by: taralexamin | July 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I believe in burning the hair on the behinds of those who pose a real threat to the U.S. but ONLY upon which point they truly do so. Not too early and not too late. Unfortunately our current (and thank God exiting) administration, has spread us so thin chasing rabbits that it has essentially converted our military might into the proverbial paper tiger, specifically regarding our ability to respond effectively and forcefully to an earnest threat. Diplomacy doesn't work with crazy people and laying out a plan of peace with the Iranians would be similar to trying to teach chemistry to a 4-year-old. In order to get through to them without waving in the wind through another military conflict we cannot win, we must use what leverage we have with them to place and keep the fear in them. Namely, we use the fact that Israel is ready, willing and able to dive head first into a military conflict with Iran and we tell the Iranians to either shut up and color or we're going to throw military, monetary and political support behind any Israeli effort to blow them off the map. That friends is true aggressive diplomacy.

Posted by: Zack | July 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Ohhh dear when it comes to defending ISRAEL, it will always end up like an auction to see who is going to be the highest bidder in order to please AIPAC as if Israel is a local lobbying group part of the US cement of society to be protected at any price!

I wonder what these 2 candidates have to say about the 150 Nuclear warheads that Israel posesses verus the Zero nuclear warhead that Iran possesses.

But above all, what would you do, if your neighbour though he declared that he has got no WMDs (i.e. IRAQ) and yet he was invaded, would you fall to the smae trap especially when you know that this threat is led by a Neocons Administration with well defined goals in implementing its philosophy.

I bet thee neocons are still nostalgic to the days of the Shah! How life was sweet for the major shareholders of OIL corporations, shame they didnt give a damn about Iranian people or democracy for that matter at the time!

Posted by: Nouri | July 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

This is who the Obama bootlickers want to sit and down and talk to without precondition. I will remind you all that when Jimmy Carter did it in the 70's he not only achieved nothing, one of our embassies got taken over (the ultimate middle digit from the Ayatollah) and America was held hostage for 444 days.

We can only negotiate from a position of strength and the Obama appeasement strategy will give that up. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS TO THIS COUNTRY AND MUST NOT BE ELECTED COMMANDER AND CHIEF.

Posted by: Tony V | July 9, 2008 1:55 PM

If you think W has put us in a "position of strength" then you are a moron.

If you think that tough diplomacy is "appeasement" then you are a moron.

Our tough diplomacy with Iraq resulted in them having no nuclear program and no WMDs.
Our tough diplomacy with North Korea resulted in them destroying their nuclear weapons program last week.

Our tough diplomacy with Libya caused them to give up their WMD programs.

You want an example of appeasement you need to look at Pakistan entering into a peace deal with al-qaeda allowing them to chill out undisturbed.

That is appeasement. Tough diplomacy is not.

If you want to ignore history and reality in exchange for spewing forth talking points bumper sticker slogans so be it...

I'll stick to reality thank you very much...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

If given the chance, Barama would have tea and crumpet's with the Iranians while discussing how to remove the foot up his butt.

They WANT Barama in the WH. They KNOW he is all about talk.... All the while they will be taking our "incentives" and building more bombs and nuclear materials. Probably with Obama's full knowledge but lack of willingness to do anything about it other than try and isolate them a little more... Knowing he will toss the burden to the GOP to act on once he is out of office.

Does he not get it? With Russia and China, Iran doesn't feel any incentive to listen to us.... Ever.

God he needs a running mate with some national security background before he decides to open his mouth again as he is losing more and more independent every day!

Does he WANT us to be FORCED to vote for McCain? I hope not!

Posted by: Wow | July 9, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse


hitpoints said re Obama:
" he's going to talk really really hard with the Iranians "

The man is a danger to the USA.

Posted by: Billw | July 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Talking to Iran is the only thing we can do. Our military is bogged down in Afghanistan, and Iraq. We need tough talks with the Iranians.

Posted by: Kevin | July 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama's response:
"These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime."

So Obama believes we aren't currently dealing aggressively with Iran, and need to change policy so that we are. Where has he been?

"Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation."

As opposed to "not a threat" during the primaries. I guess all this threatening stuff just came up now.

"Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions."

Now is the time, since I guess we aren't already doing this. Hey Obama, last month was the time, too, and we've been doing it. Sorry you're late.

"It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course."

"It's time" again. Yeah, we've been doing that ALREADY. Iran was recently offered more incentives to stop enriching uranium. They didn't give a formal response, yet stated they will not consider suspending enrichment. We've BEEN using carrot-and-stick diplomacy. Obama things we need to change to start using it. Is he this uninformed, or is he so cynical to think Americans will believe he's the first to propose it?

"As President, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy."

As in, he's going to talk really really hard with the Iranians.

What a piece of work he is!

Posted by: hitpoints | July 9, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Tony V:
" We can only negotiate from a position of strength and the Obama appeasement strategy will give that up. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS TO THIS COUNTRY AND MUST NOT BE ELECTED COMMANDER AND CHIEF. "

I agree. The man apparently has not learned from history, which he should have studied instead of the koran.

The man we need at present unfortunately is no longer amoung the living, as idiot Bush took care of that. Sadam Hussein was controlling Iraq in the only way it can be controlled. Regardless. we should have maintained contact with him such that today he would be the tool we need against Iran. We could have saved many lives and billions of dollars.

Posted by: Billw | July 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The shield doesn't reach Iran, and the interceptors are completely unrelated to the EW capability. Detecting impact and tracking the missiles are already covered. This whole missile defense in Europe is a big fat red herring.


Are we talking to a defense minister here? If so, please provide us with a map of the system for us OK? If you cant, just go away and vote for obama. All your rhetoric is getting tiring!!

Posted by: Dude | July 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Some idiot wrote this:

"Deterrence works for both parties. We may have to eventually live with a nuclear Iran, if they are indeed pursuing that option. Pakistan has the bomb and they are arguably more radical and unstable than Iran, and we live with that."

NO we don't have to live with a nuclear Iran. Their STATED FOREIGN POLICY STANCE IS TO ERADICATE ISRAEL. If you were leading a country (Israel) would you even allow the possibility that Iran would have a nuke? This is why liberals are not only lousy leaders, they are dangerous. ISRAEL WILL BOMB IRAN BEFORE THEY LET THIS HAPPEN, AND I HOPE THEY WILL...SOON

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Let's get Hillary back. She had the Iranians changing their underwear.

Posted by: John | July 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

This is who the Obama bootlickers want to sit and down and talk to without precondition. I will remind you all that when Jimmy Carter did it in the 70's he not only achieved nothing, one of our embassies got taken over (the ultimate middle digit from the Ayatollah) and America was held hostage for 444 days.

We can only negotiate from a position of strength and the Obama appeasement strategy will give that up. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS TO THIS COUNTRY AND MUST NOT BE ELECTED COMMANDER AND CHIEF.

Posted by: Tony V | July 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Yawn:o
Sorry, all this dooms day fear of the middle east stuff is so boring. You only need read a book some flake is handing out on your local college campus for free if you want to hear this. Or go read the local rag at your grocery store. I'm sure they will have some dead sea scroll predictions of dooms day for ya.

This race has gotten pretty boring since Hill dropped out.

Posted by: paperclip | July 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Deterrence works for both parties. We may have to eventually live with a nuclear Iran, if they are indeed pursuing that option. Pakistan has the bomb and they are arguably more radical and unstable than Iran, and we live with that.

Posted by: John | July 9, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"With the shield goes the threat to Iran that any missle crossing into the shield air space from Iran will be met with and overwhelming response that will follow within minutes of any impact"

The shield doesn't reach Iran, and the interceptors are completely unrelated to the EW capability. Detecting impact and tracking the missiles are already covered. This whole missile defense in Europe is a big fat red herring.

Take them out? Good, and since you know where they are, you could share that information with everyone, because I'd be willing to wager nothing of military value is at Bushehr or any other well known military site. The Iranains know redundancy, CCD, and how to safeguard their ops. A missile strike on them would be hitting a camel in the butt producing no value to us, and might give them the cause to strike without provoking as much outrage had they launched the first strike themselves. Dumb.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | July 9, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Pentagon already has in place a workable plan to seize the Straits in order to guarantee passage to 40% of the world's crude. The Navy Aegis missile defense has worked well in tests and we'd likely need the Marine corp to capture territory within 30 or so miles on the North shore. Let's not forget what they did to our embassy and what their proxies did to the Marines in Beirut.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"And how would a missile shieled in the Czech Republic defend anyone against an Iranian Shahab 3?"

The shield is also a monitoring system. With the shield goes the threat to Iran that any missle crossing into the shield air space from Iran will be met with and overwhelming response that will follow within minutes of any impact.

Or the other alternative is stop pussyfootin with them and take their nuke facilities out. End of story...at least until we have to do it again. Although the world has told us that its not ready for preemption, so we are just going to have to live with losing a city full of people before we can take them out. Maybe, the cold war approach will work...maybe not.

Posted by: Dude | July 9, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Iran has been overtly threatened by two nuclear powers; Israel & the United States. Isn't it only prudent of them to prepare a defense against an attack without warning? We cannot expect a nation to stand idly by and wait for an attack.

Posted by: Wickiser | July 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"Can someone explain what "aggressive diplomacy is"? Do you say, "either give me what I want, or I will be unfortunately be left with no option but to ask you again?"

We have been pursuing sanctions against Iran for years, and Iran's allies, and opponents of US power in general, have thwarted all but the most token."

This is why the right fails diplomacy 101, and has since Kissenger left the national scene...they think democracy is all about sitting down and talking to people, when really it is about the manipulation of the international order and all that goes on behind the scenes to force other people's hand. They understand very well how it works in domestic politics with framing issues, boxing opponents into corners, and manipulating public opinion, but they don't understand how to do that at the international level. You want to limit Iran? Drive a wedge between them and Russia, I'd say primarily over oil drilling in the Caspian Sea and pipeline development in central Asia. Find out which enemy is the lesser threat in the near and far term between Iran and Russia, cut a deal with the lesser, develop a plan to mitigate the negative fallout of that relationship, and follow through on it. Cut off their arms suppliers, make them waste resources on a different set of problems/adversary than us and Israel, and then covertly work to destabilize the regime from within through economic powers and alliances. That's how diplomacy works.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | July 9, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"Well sanctions against Iran are really working well arent they Obama? Just what stronger sanctions are there Obama? Are you going to insult them into submission?"

And how would a missile shieled in the Czech Republic defend anyone against an Iranian Shahab 3?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | July 9, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Doc: "Can we change a religion/philosophy that basically hates us? Can/should we impose our will or way of governance on a people? Or rather can we figure out a way to make our selves and perhaps the world independent of the one thing that give them influence, money and thus power? "

Good questions. The last one is the solution, of course.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

This is a GREAT example of BHO's foreign policy stick vs. McCain's.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called Iran a threat that should be contained with diplomacy and tighter sanctions on Wednesday, and Republican John McCain said Tehran's missile test proved the need for a missile defense shield in Europe.

Well sanctions against Iran are really working well arent they Obama? Just what stronger sanctions are there Obama? Are you going to insult them into submission?

Maybe Georgie Soros can pay them into submission? Although our no domestic drilling - buy 70% imported oil is already doing that and that aint workin either!

Short of taking them out Obama, a missle sheild that thwarts their aspirations makes a lot more sense than thwarting them with you silly rhetoric.

Posted by: Dude | July 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Both McCain and Obama sound identical to me.

They both speak about Israel's security first, greater presure on Iran by whatever means, and a willingness to go to war if Iran doesn't follow their orders.

Neither McCain nor Obama are talking about peace, disarmament, or solving the Palestinian problem.

Posted by: berrymonster | July 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Ok Budman I couldn't resist that one. But honestly, what can we should we really do something about? Can we change a religion/philosophy that basically hates us? Can/should we impose our will or way of governance on a people? Or rather can we figure out a way to make our selves and perhaps the world independent of the one thing that give them influence, money and thus power? ERRR I'll take (b) for 500 please.

Posted by: Doc | July 9, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain what "aggressive diplomacy is"? Do you say, "either give me what I want, or I will be unfortunately be left with no option but to ask you again?"

We have been pursuing sanctions against Iran for years, and Iran's allies, and opponents of US power in general, have thwarted all but the most token.

Posted by: Rightie | July 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

We don't have to worry about Iran and the middle east in general!!

Posted by: Doc | July 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

No more then yesterday. Nothing new here and nothing we are not well aware of. It is the over reaction that Iran was able to generate that gives them added importance. All we have to do is monitor the situation as we have been doing and say very little. Nothing is going to happen. They have gotten Mccain to go completely off the air. They must be laughing their asses off now with the reaction they got to their little stunt.

+++++++
I cant believe how short sighted and slanted most of these comments are. Look at the big picture long term and tell me that we dont have to worry about Iran and the Middle East in general.

Posted by: BudMan1 | July 9, 2008 12:36 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Most military expert say the Iranians have not reached the point of building a small nuclear war head that fits into their missiles. But they can just put a conventional warhead with a mixture of radioactive material in the missiles and shoot them at Israel, Israel will become inhabitable.

Posted by: out of the box | July 9, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I cant believe how short sighted and slanted most of these comments are. Look at the big picture long term and tell me that we dont have to worry about Iran and the Middle East in general.

Posted by: BudMan1 | July 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

What does a Star Wars missile defense system for Europe have to do with Iran? Even if their missiles will actually travel 1,250 miles and they can actually aim them somewhat in the right direction and our Star Wars defense can someday be made to work, isn't Europe beyond their range? So what is McCain talking about?

Posted by: Ed Szewczyk | July 9, 2008 12:23 PM

WcCain likes to offer questionable solutions that may or may not work sometime in the next 10-15 years. See his newfound support of ANWR drilling his contest for the amazing car battery, and his views on Iraq for examples...

Posted by: dan | July 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

What does a Star Wars missile defense system for Europe have to do with Iran? Even if their missiles will actually travel 1,250 miles and they can actually aim them somewhat in the right direction and our Star Wars defense can someday be made to work, isn't Europe beyond their range? So what is McCain talking about?

Posted by: Ed Szewczyk | July 9, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Our missile defense system is our early warning systems that lets us retaliate at a 50 or 100 to 1 ratio.

+++++++++++
By the way....our so-called missile defense system is completely unproven and has cost billions and billions of dollars.

So by all means....let's spend a few more billions of dollars on something that doesn't work and most likely won't work for decades.

Or we could build it and then let everyone know that we need the exact coordinates and exact details of any missile launches so that we can hopefully blow it up.

Yeah I'm sure that will work out nicely....

Posted by: dan | July 9, 2008 12:10 PM

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 12:15 PM

I get it now....we'd have ample warning of some piss-poor missile being launched that may or may not hit its target so that we could then wipe Iran off the face of the earth with our nukes.

How would we get Iran's oil if they were all blowed up???

Posted by: dan | July 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Are you referring to the same North Korea that just destroyed its nuclear weapons program thanks to sanctions and our diplomatic efforts....

I'll take a non-nuclear spoiled child any day of the week over a 100 year war thank you very much....

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM


Yep, the same that sold nuclear material and intelligence to Syria and Iran.

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 12:08 PM

So why wouldn't sanctions and diplomacy work with Iran? It worked w/ North Korea and they actually seemed to have nuclear weapons (which Iran does not).

Oh and by the way...it was our so-called ally Pakistan who sold the most nuclear technology lately. You know Pakistan right...the place where Bin Laden kicks it completely unmolested?

You wanna bomb Pakistan too?

Or do you only have selective rage for whichever country Dick and W tells you to be afraid of?

Posted by: dan | July 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Our missile defense system is our early warning systems that lets us retaliate at a 50 or 100 to 1 ratio.

+++++++++++
By the way....our so-called missile defense system is completely unproven and has cost billions and billions of dollars.

So by all means....let's spend a few more billions of dollars on something that doesn't work and most likely won't work for decades.

Or we could build it and then let everyone know that we need the exact coordinates and exact details of any missile launches so that we can hopefully blow it up.

Yeah I'm sure that will work out nicely....

Posted by: dan | July 9, 2008 12:10 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Iran must stop self-defense, our President Bush has demanded; we will be better able to savage them as a weak nation. Iran ability to defend herself is a threat to Israel's dominance of the Middle East. Thanks to USA hardware and economic supports, Israel a nation of about 6 million has cowed all the regional Arab nations of over 100 million people.

Please read: http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/2008/06/foreign-policy-of-president-bush-and.html

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Are you out of you mind. These don't even have guidance systems. They would be lucky to hit a whole city if they tried much less a real target.

+++++++++++
the iran tests were a show of strength.attention should be paid to the relocation of the aircraft carrier so it is not a sitting duck for short range missles.isreal will use the two german subs now equiped with cruise missles yo take the iranian nuk program.

Posted by: billy hill | July 9, 2008 12:09 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

By the way....our so-called missile defense system is completely unproven and has cost billions and billions of dollars.

So by all means....let's spend a few more billions of dollars on something that doesn't work and most likely won't work for decades.

Or we could build it and then let everyone know that we need the exact coordinates and exact details of any missile launches so that we can hopefully blow it up.

Yeah I'm sure that will work out nicely....

Posted by: dan | July 9, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

the iran tests were a show of strength.attention should be paid to the relocation of the aircraft carrier so it is not a sitting duck for short range missles.isreal will use the two german subs now equiped with cruise missles yo take the iranian nuk program.

Posted by: billy hill | July 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

No need to freak out about this. None of the news coverage mentions this, but Israel already has a large arsenal of Jericho II ballistic missiles, which can easily hit Tehran or anyplace else in the Middle East. They've got the capability to put 1 megaton nuclear warheads on them as well. The Israelis also have a satellite-based early warning system in place, and they're in the process of building an antimissile system using an updated version of the U.S.-made Arrow interceptor. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/IsraelMissile2005.html

Posted by: Patrick | July 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Iran is just pushing peoples buttons and Mccain is going for it. Mccain statements today are already over reaction to what was a staged non event by Iran. These missiles are nothing new and not worth much of anything. Mccain is so predictable easy to get to react it is frightening.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Are you referring to the same North Korea that just destroyed its nuclear weapons program thanks to sanctions and our diplomatic efforts....

I'll take a non-nuclear spoiled child any day of the week over a 100 year war thank you very much....

Posted by: | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM


Yep, the same that sold nuclear material and intelligence to Syria and Iran.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

What Obama is suggesting amounts to putting Iran in "timeout" with the promise of ice cream if they will behave themselves next time. This tactic leads to spoiled children when used in parenting and if the same method is used here we should expect no different results. For a living example of this take a look at North Korea.

Posted by: Chris | July 9, 2008 11:47 AM


Are you referring to the same North Korea that just destroyed its nuclear weapons program thanks to sanctions and our diplomatic efforts....

I'll take a non-nuclear spoiled child any day of the week over a 100 year war thank you very much....

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I believe we are missing a great opportunity. It is time the world rejects the intrinsic violence in the middle east.
It is time to create a free weapons zone in the region. We have to stream line the concept of 'everybody has it...or nobody has it'...and decide and implement the 'nobody has it'...including Israel and Iran'.
Zero tolerance for weapons of any type in the region. If the people in the area still want to continue their road to insanity, let them, but they will have to fight with sticks and stones.

Their stupidity is creating serious economic problems all over the world. Let's not succumb to their ability to manipulate and makes us part of something so alien to all of us.

Sticks and stones should be.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

What Obama is suggesting amounts to putting Iran in "timeout" with the promise of ice cream if they will behave themselves next time. This tactic leads to spoiled children when used in parenting and if the same method is used here we should expect no different results. For a living example of this take a look at North Korea.

Posted by: Chris | July 9, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Are these missile tests the "equalization of power in the Mid-East to which Senator Obama was referring in a speech several weeks ago? Or, was Senator Obama referring to his "equalization.." to removing the missiles and atomic bombs from both Israel and Iran?

Posted by: Bayou Pierre | July 9, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Take a reality check, These are 1950's level technology missiles that they are lucky don't blow up on the launch pad. They have no guidance systems to speak of and can't hit anything. They are no threat what so ever to anyone.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company